B. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 73. The file does not indicate that the subject matter of the petition is pending settlement in any other international proceeding, nor does it indicate that it reproduces a petition that has already been examined by this or any other international organization. Therefore, the requirements set forth in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been satisfied. C. Colorable claim 74. The Commission believes that the acts denounced by the petitioners regarding irregularities in the consultation process conducted by the State with respect to the oil exploration and exploitation concession granted to a company to be carried out in the ancestral territory of the Kichwa indigenous people of Sarayaku, as well as the threats, attacks, persecution, and harassment directed against members and leaders of that nationality and its respective traditional organization, and the threats and harassment suffered by the girls of the community, and the restrictions placed on movement using the Community’s access routes, if proved, could constitute violations of the rights guaranteed in Articles 4 (life), 5 (personal integrity), 7 (personal liberty and security), 8 (due process), 12 (freedom of religion and conscience), 13 (freedom of thought and expression), 16 (association), 19 (rights of the child), 21 (property), 22 (freedom of movement), 23 (political participation), 24 (equality before the law), 25 (judicial protection), and 26 (progressive development), all of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument. Moreover, there is no evidence of a lack of merits or inadmissibility of the petition lodged. Therefore, the Commission believes that the requirements established in Article 47(b) and (c) of the American Convention have been satisfied. 75. Likewise, the Commission believes that the acts denounced in the petition do not contain sufficient elements to claim a violation of Articles 3 and 4 of the American Convention. V. CONCLUSIONS 76. The Commission rejects the objection regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies lodged by the Ecuadorian State and concludes that it is competent to examine the claims submitted by the petitioners concerning the alleged violation of Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 relative to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention and that the petition meets the admissibility requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. 77. Based on the foregoing arguments, and without prejudging the merits of the case, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1. To declare the petition admissible with respect to Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention. 2. To declare the present petition inadmissible with respect to article 3 of the American Convention. 3. To advise the Ecuadorian State and the petitioner of this decision. 4. To continue to analyze the merits of the case. 5. To publish this decision and include it in its Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly. 14